Pentwater passed a resolution to prepare an assessor’s plat for
Pentwater Beach Addition No. 4. After discovering Pentwater’s
plans to prepare an assessor’s plat, plaintiffs filed a complaint
seeking to enjoin the implementation of the assessor’s plat.
The trial court denied plaintiffs relief pursuant to the "Subdivision
Control Act" of 1967 (or "the Act"), MCL 560.201et
seq.; MSA 26.430(201) et seq. During the time in which
plaintiffs were awaiting the resolution of the above-mentioned
lawsuit, Pentwater’s surveyor, Sammy Barnett, created an assessor’s
plat, which was filed by Pentwater with the appropriate governmental
agency clerk.

Thereafter plaintiffs filed the instant complaint requesting
the trial court to vacate, correct, or revise the proposed plat.
Following a hearing, the trial court approved the plat without
modification or correction.

On appeal plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in approving
Pentwater’s proposed assessor’s plat. According to MCR 2.613,
a trial court’s findings of fact may not be set aside unless clearly
erroneous. Vivian v Roscommon Rd Comm, 164 Mich App 234,
238-239; 416 NW2d 394 (1987). A finding is clearly erroneous
when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire record is left with a definite and firm conviction
a mistake has been made. Id.

The Subdivision Control Act controls the creation of Pentwater’s
plat, plaintiffs’ objections to the plat, and the trial court’s
ultimate approval of the plat. The Act provides an assessor’s
plat may be ordered in either of the following conditions:

(a) When a parcel or tract of land is owned by 2 or more persons.

(b) When the description of 1 or more of the different parcels
within the area cannot be made sufficiently certain and accurate,
or are deemed excessively complicated by the governing body, for
the purposes of assessment and taxation without a survey or resurvey.
[MCL 560.201(1); MSA 26.430(201)(1).]

The governing body of a municipality can order the creation of
an assessor’s plat by the adoption of a resolution. MCL 560.201(2);
MSA 26.430(201)(2). The plat is to be made by a surveyor. MCL
560.202(1); MSA 26.430(202)(1).

Additionally, under the Act, the surveyor making the plat is
to "survey and lay out the boundaries of each parcel, street,
alley or road and dedication or pubic or private use, according
to the records of the register of deeds and whatever other
evidence that may be available to show the intent of the buyer
and seller, in the chronological order of their conveyance or
dedication." MCL 560.204(1); MSA 26.430(204)(1) (emphasis
added). Furthermore, according to the Act, the surveyor making
the plat "shall reconcile any discrepancies that may be revealed,
so that the plat as certified to the governing body shall be in
conformity with the records of the register of deeds as nearly
as is practicable." MCL 560.206(1); MSA 26.430(206)(1)
(emphasis added).

Plaintiffs make several arguments as to why the trial court should
have rejected Pentwater’s proposed assessor’s plat. First, plaintiffs
claim no discrepancies exist between the 1905 plat on file with
the register of deeds and the current use of their property.
Thus, plaintiffs argue Pentwater had no authority to create a
new assessor’s plat. The evidence adduced from the lower court
record does not support this contention. Barnett testified the
current roads and houses within the subdivision were not physically
located as they were depicted on the 1905 plat. He also testified
several houses were built on the roadways as platted in the 1905
plat. Indeed, it appears only one point on the original 1905
plat could be physically located in the subdivision. Based upon
Barnett’s unrebutted testimony, the current owners’ use of the
subdivision property is incongruous with the property as indicated
on the 1905 plat. Therefore, because there are clear discrepancies
between the 1905 plat and the property owners’ current use of
the land, Pentwater’s ordering of a new assessor’s plat was proper
under MCL 560.201(1); MSA 26.430(201)(1). The fact some properties
within the plat were being used consistent with the plat does
not cure the remaining discrepancies and negate the need for an
assessor’s plat.

Plaintiffs next argue the treatment of roads in the assessor’s
plat fails to conform "as nearly as is practicable"
to the records of the register of deeds as required by MCL 560.206(1);
MSA 26.430(206)(1). We agree in part with plaintiffs’ argument.
While no Michigan precedent exists interpreting the statutory
language "as nearly as is practicable," statutory language
should be construed reasonably, keeping in mind the purpose of
the act. Department of Social Services v Brewer, 180 Mich
App 82; 446 NW2d 593 (1989). The Legislature is presumed to have
intended the meaning it plainly expressed. Frasier v Model
Coverall Service, Inc, 182 Mich App 741, 744; 453 NW2d 301
(1990). If the plain and ordinary meaning of the language is clear,
judicial construction is normally neither necessary nor permitted.Lorencz v Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich 370; 483 NW2d 844 (1992).

We interpret the plain and ordinary definition of "as nearly
as is practicable" to mean that an assessor’s plat does not
have to perfectly reconcile the current use of property with the
records of the register of deeds. MCL 560.206(1); MSA 26.430(206)(1).
According to Webster’s Dictionary, "practicable" can
be defined as meaning "possible" or "feasible."Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, G &
C Merriam Company (1970), p 1780. Thus, Pentwater’s assessor’s
plat merely needed to conform as near as logically possible or
feasible to the 1905 plat. From Barnett’s testimony, we conclude
it was impossible for certain subdivision roads to have completely
conformed to the original plat. Thus, because the statutory language
allows roads on the plat to be altered, we hold Barnett’s altering
of certain roads to conform to their existing use was not contrary
to the Subdivision Control Act’s provisions. However, we agree
with plaintiffs that the extension or vacation of roads inconsistent
with the original plat and not evidenced by current usage was
improper. The need for the creation of an assessor’s plat does
not give the creator free reign to correct all perceived current
and future land use problems. The assessor’s plat was to be created
to enable the taxing authority to properly assess and collect
taxes. As correctly noted by the trial court, the assessor’s
plat does not act to alter legal marketable title to the properties
affected. Filing of the assessor’s plat does not vacate the original
plat or the rights attendant to it.[1] MCL 560.104; MSA 26.430(104).

We must also reject plaintiffs’ argument the assessor’s plat
improperly combined their several lots. Plaintiffs contend the
combining of their lots on the assessor’s plat will force them
to undergo the expense of resubdividing their already divided
property. This argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs property
is still subdivided into lots on the original plat which, as noted,
is not vacated by the filing of the assessor’s plat. Moreover,
the act does not require the surveyor to survey and lay out the
boundaries of each "lot." Instead it requires the boundaries
of each "parcel" to be laid out. MCL 560.204; MSA 26.430(204).
Lots need only be numbered. MCL 560.207; MSA 26.430(207). Thus
although the assessor’s plat should indicate the existence of
the lots contained in the original plat by number, the surveyor
need not survey each individual lot. The surveying of each individual
lot of a parcel owned by the same parties not only does not further
the purpose of facilitating the proper assessment and taxation
of properties but oftentimes, as here, would be cost prohibitive.

Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not err in finding the
creation of an assessor’s plat was warranted but remand for modification
of the proposed plat consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part. No taxable costs pursuant
to MCR 7.219, neither party having prevailed in full.